http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/juri2010.html

AGRARIAN DISPUTE OR EJECTMENT?

[ OCTAVIO VS. PEROVANO, G.R. No. 172400 , June 23, 2009]
ejectment vs. agrarian dispute

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action is commenced, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.

A scrutiny of the material allegations in respondent’s complaint before the MTCC shows that it involves possession de facto, the only issue involved in ejectment proceedings. Enrico alleged he is the lawful and registered owner of Lot No. 412 and that on or before the first week of January 1999, petitioners Zosimo and Jesus, by threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered the premises of the land, ploughed it and started planting sugarcane

Records show that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) promulgated on June 3, 2005 a Decision ruling that Zosimo and Jesus are not recognized farmer-beneficiaries. Without waiting for an award of any CLOA, complainants-appellants occupied the landholding. The acts of the complainants-appellants are similar to that of land grabbing. The agrarian reform law is not enacted to give license to anybody to grab somebody else’s land. Neither [is it] enacted to protect the land grabbers or the squatters (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners’ argument that the case involves an agrarian matter divesting the regular courts of jurisdiction therefore has no merit. They are not farmer-beneficiaries but mere usurpers of the land.

Clearly, therefore, the action is one for ejectment and the MTCC has jurisdiction over it.

EARNEST EFFORTS TOWARDS A COMPROMISE NOT REQUIRED

Article 151 of the Family code must be construed strictly, it being an exception to the general rule. Hence, a sister-in-law or brother-in-law is not included in the enumeration [Gayon v. Gayon, 36 SCRA 104; emphasis supplied]. In the afore-cited case of Martinez vs. Martinez involving a husband and wife as complainants and the husband’s brother as defendant, it was held that complainants were not required to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code because of the inclusion and presence of the wife as one of the plaintiffs in the MTC. The court said that the wife is not a member of the same family as that of her husband and the respondent brother-in-law.

Hence, once a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same family, the law no longer makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper. Thus, Article 151 of the Family Code applies to cover when the suit is exclusively between or among family members [ Hiyas Savings and Loans Banks, Inc. vs. Hon. Edmundo T. Acuña, August 31, 2006].

A Young Lady’s Tale


A policeman brought a young lady to a judge and charged her with speeding along Ayala Avenue in Makati.“Young lady,” barked the magistrate, “this officer tells me you were blazing at 80 kilometers per hour on Ayala Avenue. What can you say about that?”“Your Honor,” replied the accused softly, “The policeman is correct. I violated the law. I am deeply sorry. I promise to reform myself. It will not happen again. Please forgive me.”The judge banged his gavel and ruled, “I fine you 500 pesos for violating the law.” Then, he descended from the rostrum, removed his robe, went to the cashier, pulled out his wallet and paid the fine of 500 pesos. Why did he do that? Because the young, repentant lady who promised to reform her life and who did not have money to pay the fine was his daughter.The judge had to follow the law and punish the traffic violator. He had to let justice be done though the heavens may fall. But because he loved his daughter, he sacrificed his own money and paid the fine.

And so it is with our Father in heaven. He is both the Lord of justice and the Lord of love. Because His people sinned and transgressed His law, He had to render justice and punish them. But because they are His children whom He loved dearly, He sent His only Son to redeem them and save them from their follies, out of His own grace and volition, not out of their worthiness or good deeds. Our Father in heaven is both the Lord of justice and the Lord of love. So must His priests in His church. So must His magistrates in His service.[From the PDI column of Ret. SC Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban]